Dataset Information

Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:A growing body of evidence supports the use of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) as an efficient and feasible surgical technique. However, few studies have investigated its applicability in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), and the long-term efficacy of LPD on PDAC remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between LPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for PDAC. METHODS:The data of patients who had OPD or LPD for PDAC between January 2013 and September 2017 were retrieved. Their postoperative outcomes and survival were compared after propensity score matching. RESULTS:A total of 309 patients were included. After a 2:1 matching, 93 cases in the OPD group and 55 in the LPD group were identified. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE), particularly grade B/C DGE, occurred less frequently in the LPD group than in the OPD group (1.8% vs. 36.6%, P?

SUBMITTER: Zhou W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6819395 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis.

Zhou Wentao W Jin Weiwei W Wang Dansong D Lu Chao C Xu Xuefeng X Zhang Renchao R Kuang Tiantao T Zhou Yucheng Y Wu Wenchuan W Jin Dayong D Mou Yiping Y Lou Wenhui W

Cancer communications (London, England) 20191028 1

<h4>Background</h4>A growing body of evidence supports the use of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) as an efficient and feasible surgical technique. However, few studies have investigated its applicability in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), and the long-term efficacy of LPD on PDAC remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between LPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for PDAC.<h4>Methods</h4>The data of patients who had OPD or LPD for ...[more]

PMID: 31661036

Similar Datasets

Project description:Currently, safety of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) in patients with liver cirrhosis is unknown. The aim of this study was to explore postoperative morbidity and mortality and long-term outcomes of cirrhotic patients after LPD. The study was a one-center retrospective study comprising 353 patients who underwent LPD between October 2010 and December 2019. A total of 28 patients had liver cirrhosis and were paired with 56 non-cirrhotic counterparts through propensity score matching (PSM). Baseline data, intra-operative data, postoperative data, and survival data were collected. Postoperative morbidity was considered as primary outcome whereas postoperative mortality, surgical parameters (operative durations, intraoperative blood loss), and long-term overall survival were secondary outcomes. Cirrhotic patients showed postoperative complication rates of 82% compared with rates of patients in the control group (48%) (P = 0.003). Further, Clavien-Dindo ≥III complication rates of 14% and 11% (P = 0.634), Clavien-Dindo I-II complication rates of 68% and 38% (P = 0.009), hospital mortality of 4% and 2% (P = 0.613) were observed for cirrhotic patients and non-cirrhotic patients, respectively. In addition, an overall survival rate of 32 months and 34.5 months (P = 0.991), intraoperative blood loss of 300 (200-400) ml and 150 (100-250) ml (P<0.0001), drain amount of 2572.5 (1023.8-5275) ml and 1617.5 (907.5-2700) ml (P = 0.048) were observed in the cirrhotic group and control group, respectively. In conclusion, LPD is associated with increased risk of postoperative morbidity in patients with liver cirrhosis. However, the incidence of Clavien-Dindo ≥III complications and post-operative mortality showed no significant increase. In addition, liver cirrhosis showed no correlation with poor overall survival in patients who underwent LPD. These findings imply that liver cirrhosis patients can routinely be considered for LPD at high volume centers with rigorous selection and management.

Project description:Background: Minimally invasive surgery in obese patients is still challenging, so exploring one more item in this research field ranks among the main goals of this research. We aimed to compare short-term postoperative outcomes of open and video-laparoscopic (VL) approaches in CRC obese patients undergoing colorectal resection. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of a surgical database including 138 patients diagnosed with CRC, undergoing VL (n = 87, 63%) and open (n = 51, 37%) colorectal surgery. As a first step, propensity score matching was performed to balance the comparison between the two intervention groups (VL and open) in order to avoid selection bias. The matched sample (N = 98) was used to run further regression models in order to analyze the observed VL surgery advantages in terms of postoperative outcome, focusing on hospitalization and severity of postoperative complications, according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Results: The study sample was predominantly male (N = 86, 62.3%), and VL was more frequent than open surgery (63% versus 37%). The two subgroup results obtained before and after the propensity score matching showed comparable findings for age, gender, BMI, and tumor staging. The specimen length and postoperative time before discharge were longer in open surgery (OS) patients; the number of harvested lymph nodes was higher than in VL patients as well (p < 0.01). Linear regression models applied separately on the outcomes of interest showed that VL-treated patients had a shorter hospital stay by almost two days and about one point less Clavien-Dindo severity than OS patients on average, given the same exposure to confounding variables. Tumor staging was not found to have a significant role in influencing the short-term outcomes investigated. Conclusion: Comparing open and VL surgery, improved postoperative outcomes were observed for VL surgery in obese patients after surgical resection for CRC. Both postoperative recovery time and Clavien-Dindo severity were better with VL surgery.

Project description:BackgroundThe objective of this study was to compare the results of laparoscopic hepatectomy with those of open hepatectomy for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CCLM) using a propensity score matching (PSM) in two university hospital settings.MethodsA patient in the laparoscopic approach (LA) surgery group was randomly matched with another patient in the open approach (OA) group using a 1:1 allocated ratio with the nearest estimated propensity score. No patients of the LA group were excluded for the matching. Matching criteria included age, gender, body mass index (BMI), American society anesthesiologists score, potential co-morbidities, hepatopathies, synchronous or metachronous lesions, size and number of CCLM, preoperative chemotherapy, minor or major liver resections. Intraoperative, postoperative data, and survival were compared in both groups.ResultsFrom January 2012 to January 2015, a total of 242 hepatectomies were consecutively performed, of which 119 for CCLM, namely 101 in the OA group (84.9%) and 18 in the LA group (15.1%). The conversion rate was 5.6% (n=1). The mortality rate was 1% in the OA group and 0% in the LA group. Prior to PSM, there was a statistically significant difference favorable to the LA group regarding operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay and the rate of medical complications. After PSM, there was no difference regarding operative time or length of hospital stay. However, there was a trend towards less blood loss (P=0.066) and fewer medical complications (44.4% vs.16.7%, P=0.07). The R0 resection rate was 94.4% (n=17) in the two groups. In addition, there was no difference regarding overall survival (P=0.358) and recurrence-free survival [HR =0.99 (0.1-12.7); P=0.99].ConclusionsLaparoscopic liver resections for CCLM seem to yield short- and long-term results, which are similar to open hepatectomies, and could well be considered an alternative to open surgery and become the gold standard in carefully selected patients.

Project description:Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy is being performed more frequently because of improved surgical techniques. Although several studies have demonstrated safety and favourable outcomes of laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy compared to open pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy, few studies have focused on the development of postoperative acute kidney injury. This retrospective study compared the prevalence and risk factors of acute kidney injury following laparoscopic and open pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy. Data from 809 patients who underwent pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy between February 2012 and September 2016 were analysed. Patients were divided into two groups according to the surgical procedure (open pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy [n = 632] vs laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy [n = 177]). The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes criteria were used to define postoperative acute kidney injury and risk factors were investigated using multivariable logistic regression analysis with propensity score matching analysis and standardized mortality ratio weighting to compare outcomes. No significant differences were found in the occurrence of postoperative acute kidney injury and incidence of postoperative ICU admission between open and laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy groups after propensity score matching (p = 1.000, p = 0.999, respectivelyand standardized mortality ratio weighted analysis (p = 0.619, p = 0.982, respectively). Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy group (propensity matched set, mean [SD], 16.7 [10.0] vs. 18.7 [9.6] days, p = 0.004; standardized mortality ratio, 16.6 [9.9] vs. 18.1 [8.8] days, p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in postoperative acute kidney injury incidence between both groups. Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy is promising with comparable postoperative outcomes to open pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy and has the advantage of shorter hospital stay.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Recent evidence suggests that albumin-to-Alkaline Phosphatase Ratio (AAPR) functions as a novel prognostic marker in several malignancies. However, whether it can predict the prognosis of unresectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains unclear. Herein, we seek to investigate this possibility by a propensity score matching (PSM) analysis. METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study in which 419 patients diagnosed with unresectable PDAC and receiving chemotherapy were recruited. Patients were stratified based on the cutoff value of AAPR. The PSM analysis was performed to identify 156 well-balanced patients in each group for overall survival (OS) comparison and subgroup analysis. Univariate and multivariate analyses were carried out to examine the potential of AAPR to indicate the prognosis of unresectable PDAC. The prediction performance of conventional model and combined model including AAPR was compared using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and concordance index (C-index). RESULTS:We identified an AAPR of 0.4 to be the optimal cutoff for OS prediction. Patients with AAPR?0.4 had significantly shorter OS compared with patients with AAPR>?0.4 (6.4 versus 9.3?months; P?<?0.001). Based on the PSM cohort and entire cohort, multivariate Cox analysis revealed that high pretreatment for AAPR was an independent marker predicting favorable survival in unresectable PDAC (hazard ratio, 0.556; 95% confidence interval, 0.408 to 0.757; P?<?0.001). Significant differences in OS were observed in all subgroups except for the group of patients age???60. Combined prognostic model including AAPR had lower AIC and higher C-index than conventional prognostic model. CONCLUSIONS:Pretreatment AAPR servers as an independent prognostic indicator for patients with unresectable PDAC. Inclusion of AAPR improved the prediction performance of conventional prognostic model, potentially helping clinicians to identify patients at high risk and guide individualized treatment.

Project description:BackgroundSelected studies have reported improved outcomes in laparoscopic compared with open distal pancreatic resection. Concerns regarding failure to achieve proper oncological resection and compromised long-term outcomes remain. This study investigated whether postoperative outcomes and long-term survival after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are comparable to those after an open procedure.MethodsThis retrospective case-control study included patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2013, identified from the National Cancer Database. Propensity score nearest-neighbour 1 : 1 matching was performed between patients undergoing laparoscopic or open distal pancreatectomy based on all relevant co-variables. The primary outcome was overall survival.ResultsOf 1947 eligible patients, 605 (31·1 per cent) underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. After propensity score matching, two well balanced groups of 563 patients each were analysed. There was no difference in overall survival at 3 years after laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy (41·6 versus 36·0 per cent; hazard ratio 0·93, 95 per cent c.i. 0·77 to 1·12; P = 0·457). The overall conversion rate was 27·3 per cent (165 of 605). Patients who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy had outcomes comparable to those of patients who had an open procedure with regard to median time to chemotherapy (50 versus 50 days; P = 0·342), median number of nodes examined (12 versus 12; P = 0·759); 30-day mortality (1·2 versus 0·9 per cent; P = 0·562); 90-day mortality (2·8 versus 3·7 per cent; P = 0·403), 30-day readmission rate (9·6 versus 9·2 per cent; P = 0·838) and positive margin rate (14·9 versus 18·5 per cent; P = 0·110). However, median duration of hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (6 versus 7 days; P < 0·001).ConclusionLaparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is an acceptable alternative to open distal pancreatectomy with no detriment to survival.

Dataset Information

Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis.

Publications

Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure